By the time I booted up the computer this morning, so much good work had already been done on this expanding CIA leak arrest story that I think I’ll just do some linking and quoting.
First, Ace, who shares my cynicism, notes how the mainstream message machine—along with many DNC loyalists and party chiefs—are likely to play this:
Here comes what I like to call “The Weekend of Important Distinctions.”
Libby leaked something that hurt a Bush critic. Bad leak; one that was completely illegal and improper; he should rot in jail and/or Hell, not necessarily in that order.
McCarthy leaked something that hurt Bush himself. Good leak; one that was necessary for the public to fully understand the dirty and illegal actions the government is taking in its name; the investigation of McCarthy is nothing short of an, um, McCarthyesque witch-hunt, possibly to distract us from the war in Iraq and Bush’s flagging popularity.
Everyone will be saying the same fucking thing.
And it’s not the DNC talking points. There’s no coordination here. The MSM just all think exactly alike, and precisely the same as the DNC’s communication squad.
You don’t have to send the MSM the DNC talking points anymore. They don’t need to be told what to say to help the Democrats any more than a pimp needs to be instructed how to peddle his whores.
Normally, I’d agree with Ace’s inveterate distrust of the mainstream media’s likely handling of this story, because, like him, I am sure the MSM will do their best to softpeddle some of the upcoming revelations. For instance, we’ll almost certainly see equivocation, red herrings, non sequiturs, and a number of other attempts to minimize the potential damage to the CIA leakers (and, potentially, it seems, US Senators Durbin and Rockefeller) who have been feeding the media choice, select state secrets. Similarly, they will work editorially to diminish the story and staunch the bleeding by burying of ledes or providing readers with what they will say is the extra historical “context” needed to understand the story (which will amount to tu quoque, with a lot of talk about conservatives smearing Clinton, etc.).
But I think it possible that the story will be too big for the press to hold back and minimize after a while, and already, the WaPo—seeming to sense this—is doing some good (if reluctant) reporting on the subject:
The CIA said the firing was the result of an internal investigation initiated in late January of all “officers who were involved in or exposed to certain intelligence programs.â€Â
[…]
The effort has been widely seen among members of the media, and some legal experts, as the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and has worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.
The Justice Department is conducting several leak inquiries, including one into reports last December in the New York Times about a secret domestic surveillance program by the National Security Agency. Officials said it is possible the department could file criminal charges in connection with that investigation and others, but it is unclear whether the department is also investigating the disclosures about CIA-run prisons.
[My emphasis]
The subtext in the clause I highlighted suggests that these leak investigations could be a net negative inasmuch as they’re already beginning to “worsen” the White House / MSM relationship—one that the WaPo acknowledges was “already-tense.”
And that of course misses the point entirely, I think, and is doubtless borne of press arrogance (which is now practically institutionalized) and 30+ years of having ideological reign over shaping and controlling narratives: because the fact is, the White House knows relations with the media will never normalize, it knows that it has been treated with hostility by an increasingly activist ideological press, and it has decided that protecting America’s security is more important than trying to get on the good side of the fourth estate, which has been hell bent on scandal-mongering, with the hope that something will stick and sink the Bush administration, ever since the start of the Iraq campaign.
Further, Porter Goss said he was going to clean up the CIA, and he—like John Bolton—seems to take his job seriously. Which is why there was such resistance to both men, though the resistance against Goss happened once he was appointed CIA head and it became apparent he really meant to shake things up.
And if this story breaks like I’m starting to sense it will (for instance, McCarthy was Larry Johnson’s boss, and the connections between familiar players favored by the anti-war left are starting to pile up1), the press calculus could play out in such a way that they see tough coverage of this scandal—an ACTUAL SCANDAL this time, mind you—as a way to rehabilitate themselves with the American public. That is, they could recognize that now is the best time to bury their ideological allegiances and attempt to show their bona fides as “objective” and “neutral” agents of information dissemination—knowing full well that if they do not, they will get swept away by the flood.
But there are consequences to all this that go way beyond the press (and what has been its increasingly blatant desire to dig for scandal rather than report the news), as commenter LagunaDave writes:
There is another aspect to “dirty war†being waged by the Democrats and the MSM against the Bush Administration (using leaks of national security information and coordinated criticism from a selected handful of retired generals).
If these are new rules of the game, any future administration, Rethuglican or lily-pure Democrat, would be foolish, I think, not to purge career professionals at the CIA and military officers that it deems politically unreliable, since people who hold those positions of trust are in a position to do great harm by selective leaking of secrets or sniping at military decisions.
That sort of purge might be good in the sense of avoiding release of secrets helpful to our enemies and preventing dissension from demoralizing the military, but bad because it deprives the government of experienced people who fill important jobs.
It is good to have people with different viewpoints involved in decision-making, but no organization can function when those with a minority viewpoint resort to covertly undermining the work of the organization after decisions are made.
Just like the extreme politicization of judicial nominations has not been good for the integrity of those who run our courts, once it becomes too much of a liability to have Democrats in the CIA, State Department and Pentagon during a Republican administration, (or Republicans during a Democratic administration), the end result will be bad for the country as a whole.
I completely agree with Dave here—and I think, in fact, that many self-identified conservatives and classical liberals would as well. In fact, what Dave highlights is the problem of obstructionism, driven by pure partisanship, which many on the right have found so distateful and destructive in the political process over the last few years. And this includes, I hasten to add, pure partisanship coming from the right, as well: GOP cheerleaders like Sean Hannity, for instance, who seem to spend all their time bringing up the Clinton administration as a rebuttal to each charge against the GOP, don’t help heal partisan divisions, and are poisoning political discourse—though they do serve a purpose, often highlighting stories that the MSM ignores.
But the potential consequences aside, leaking is a problem that has become too much a part of the beltway culture, and leaks during war time—which have become increasingly bold in their scope—are a real threat to our national security, and so simply can no longer be tolerated, even if it means that until both parties can learn to control their animus, careerists in the intel field are treated with distrust by the Administration in power, and potentially purged on partisan grounds.
*****
More here; see also, Snepp v US, 1980, And Gateway Pundit has more on the Durbin, Rockefeller business.
****
update: additional thoughts from neo-neocon and Rick Moran; see also, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, and Mark Levin.
1Given that McCarthy was on the NSC at the same time as Joe Wilson—and both were active in Africa—speculation is beginning to grow that perhaps it was McCarthy who sent Wilson to Niger. Her connections to Sandy Burger and Richard Clarke have also been documented. None of which is dispositive of some grand conspiracy, but it certainly is beginning to raise eyebrows…
Snepp v. US
The link is here
Though its about disgorgement of benefits from publishing a book with secrets where the writer failed to submit it to pre-publication review. I don’t see the connection.
[LagunaDave went over this in the last thread, which actus knows.
Just so that the info doesn’t need to be repeated constantly – ed]
<objective†and “neutral†agents of information disseminationâ€â€knowing full well that if they do not, they will get swept away by the flood.</blockquote>
Me thinks that you may be giving too much credit for logical thinking to the MSM. I see them hanging on with their teeth and fingernails until they finally realize that all their teeth need to be pulled and that they bite their fingernails. Hope I’m wrong.
Oh.. this is also the obligatory ignore acthole comment. Please do not feed the acthole.
This is a bad thing, how?
Maybe a little distrust of careerists will get them off their duffs into the field. Maybe a massive pogrom of dipdunks will finally let our field operators snoop and poop, rape, pillage and burn.
The last thing we need is another G-14 level ethnographic Chi-variable study on the economic distribution of second-world technology in Bremenhaven. We need a bunch of chest-thumping, knuckle-dragging dock workers that can speaky ‘hard-case’, not pampered Ivy League pussies that we oh so very much luv to laud their indispensable patriotism.
Our intelligence apparatus gave us 9-11, Khobar, the Iranian revolution, WMD(?) in Iraq, one way or another, the Cole, WTC I, and a dozens of communist revolutions/infiltrations/wars during the Cold War. They are mediocre in a league that can’t tolerate a single mistake.
Bleed ‘em.
BTW, they are often promoted for political reasons, and that has worked out stunningly poorly. Firing agents for political reasons merely completes the transformation of marginally useful institutions into abominations. It hastens fate; it does not deny destiny.
I’m surprised that some enterprising MSM shill hasn’t screamed that they “Leaked the name of a CIA super top secret spy”. Maybe the are sufficiently burned by the Plame revelations to not try to play that with another, higher up, not at all secret CIA employee.
Or maybe David Corn is just on vacation.
It appears that Mr. Goss’ efforts are beginning to bear fruit, but cleaning out that viper’s nest will be dangerous and time consuming.
On the political side, Karl Rove must be smiling. It’s terribly premature, but like Jeff, it seems like this story has legs. Moreover, the press is so complicit that it will be pretty hard to swep this under the rug. There’s Pulitzers to be won next year. They’ll turn on each other in a minute if the story has legs.
Poor Dems–Plame, Wilson, Clarke, Berger, Reid, Rockefeller–all Rats? And the press traitors? Lovely.
Mark Levin agrees with me that the MSM will bury this. The big story is the price of gasoline.
Also the moral equivalence arguement is already appearing.
For those of you who missed it the first time I wrote it…
Just thought I’d clear that up.
McCarthy should be thrown in jail. What she did was nothing short of treason. And these dubious “comparisons” the left is trying to make between this and the effort to get info out to counter French spy Joe Wilson’s attacks are just that: dubious comparisons. The president has the authority to classifry and declassify. The president IS the law. McCarthy is nothing more than a deranged Kossack with security clearance.
May she rot in jail.
Already forgot that all District Attorneys were fired by the Clintons? Or (several longtime employees of) the Travel Office? Made up an embezzlement accusation on the head of that office?
Those were the days. So many accusations, so many of them actually true.
I’m thinking we can start using a new definition:
I’m still working on it, but I think it’s on the right track.
I know what he said. And the case is about disgorgement of benefits (ie, cash) gained when you fail to submit a book to pre-publication review. They don’t even get to punitive damages! What this has to say about crimes is beyond me.
I provided the link so folks can read the case and see what this enforceability is about. Its about fiduciary and trust relationships. Not the criminal law.
Hmmm, so possession of classified intelligence is not a crime, Anybody-but-actus?
Gee, officer, that crack is my uncle Steve’s. And the War Plan for North Korea? Oh, that’s Roberto’s; he’s my boytoy.
What are you doing with those handcuffs? I didn’t break the law? The one-armed man did.
Good Christ have mercy on your soul, man.
and consider, the DoJ is concurrently pursuing the NSA spy scandal leaker/traitors.
we could wake up to more good news tomorrow…
yummy.
Given that McCarthy was on the NSC at the same time as Joe Wilsonâ€â€and both were active in Africaâ€â€speculation is beginning to grow that perhaps it was McCarthy who sent Wilson to Niger. Her connections to Sandy Burger and Richard Clarke have also been documented. None of which is dispositive of some grand conspiracy, but it certainly is beginning to raise eyebrows…
Interesting stuff, very interesting. Some have been speculating that McCarthy was Woodward’s source, that the whole Plame “outting” (everyone in Washington knew she was CIA) was an elaborate hoax to make the Wilsons look like victims. I wouldn’t put that passed Wilson or his pal Clarko.
Arrest them all, I cannot wait. The gov can then go into court and say that national security was damaged because they were running secret detention centers abroad so that no law applied, and goddamn it, somebody told. I cannot wait.
I guess this is what frosts me most, that reporters and their editors think they should be the ones deciding which national security matters will remain secret and which will not. They assail President Bush for declassifying documents that refute the misrepresentations and outright lies of Joe Wilson even when he was well within his authority to do so but will hail Mary McCarthy as a righteous whistleblower even though she violated the law (expect to see her picture on the cover of Time next December). Careerists and bureaucrats denounce the administration for “hijacking” national security and foreign policy. We do indeed live in Bizarro World.
Bleed ‘em is right. Bleed ‘em dry.
There are going to be several different lines of inquiry between now and November, I think. One will involve Ms. McCarthy’s relationships wiht Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke and the rest. Another will involve Ms. McCarthy’s relationship ship with the Kerry campaign (thru donations and Mr. Berger). A third will involve Ms. McCarthy’s relationship with the press, and the press’s realtionship with the Democratic power structure (Clarke, Berger, Kerry, Durbin, Clinton, etc.) Who knows Mary Mapes and Dan Rather’s unimpeachable source may very well pop back up.
Will there be any fire or is this all smoke? I have no idea, but I bet it all smolders through November. And I bet that the MSM and the Democratic party will, the more they struggle against all this, look like men trapped in quick sand.
Porter Goss and the DOJ basically are now in the postion to play the same game with leaks that the Democrats have played for five years. This all promises to be very ugly, and great, great fun. Buy lots of popcorn.
Nice try, Actus, but you want to check out the Morison case as well.
There simply is no question that one can be charged with espionage under the Espionage Acts for unauthorized possession and dissemination of classified information. Now, I think it may be less obvious that the press can be tried and convicted for publication — the Pentagon Papers case (contrary to common belief) was never finally adjudicated, because it was dismissed for government misconduct — but it’s certainly arguable that they committed a crime as well.
Democrats and treason: the standard partnership since 1968.
The president IS the law.
I say this as a Bush supporter: No, the President is NOT THE LAW. The Law is the Law! If the President, any President, were “the law” we’d be going down a very, very bad road…
The case against Ellsberg was dismissed for misconduct. He was a govt employee. So was Morrison.
The case against the Times and Post in the matter of the Pentagon Papers was not dismissed. There the injunction was overruled and they were allowed to print away. New York Times Co v. US.
What I’ve been saying is that while criminal charges against govt employees are not novel or unproblematic, charges against non-employees, such as lobbyists and the media, are. And US v. Snepp doesn’t say much about that.
GregM,
You are quite wrong for being so right.
My name is Vercingetorix. As your local blog sheriff I promise to punish to the wicked and criminals and the wickedly stupid criminals with fire from my eyes and righteous strokes of lightning from my arse.
I promise to grind your enemies under my boot heel until their pips squeak. I promise to build a tunnel from Mexico directly to Canada: illegal immigration can do the same wonders for Montreal as it has done for San Fernando.
My name is Vercingetorix, and with your support, I will be the Law.
My Motto? No Brown person will go unoppressed and everyone gets a vagina to clench in terror of the Christoban gestapo; even actus.
Huh? “Christoban Gestapo”? What the heck are you talking about?
My guess is you think a “V for Vendetta” reality is here or not far off. I completely disagree. I was just correcting someone’s incorrect understanding of “law”
This was bound to happen at some point. The Ends Justify The Means tactics of the broad Left, hopefully, have finally reached critical mass. It should no longer be possible to explain away these tactics with deflection or silence. I hope this will be enough to shake the practical Dems to purge the nastier elements of their party. It just isn’t comfortable to be unable to threaten the party you voted for with switching to the other.
But I’m not going to hold my breath.
Actually, Greg, I think Verc was just fuckin’ with you.
runninrebel,
Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I was hopin’… Since I had a prolonged “discussion” with a Lib Moonbat last night, I know there are folks who DO talk like that.
I wonder if Mary saw the announcement from Europe that they could find no secret prisons before or after she got the pink slip. Before–I would have loved to see her sweat. After–she knew she’d been had.
What a great film that would be!
actus
Interestingly, arguments before the 6th Appellate District, state of CA, in Apple v Does were heard on Thursday… ostensibly pitting the First Amendment against theft of trade secrets.
What makes you believe that classified national information – strategic or intelligence based – is somehow less worthy of protection (or the theft thereof less worthy of prosecution) than commercial trade secrets?
Searp,
The point is that there were no “secret detention centers”.
The United States often transports prisoners from distant places. Airplanes need fuel; pilots, crews and guards need food and sleep. Other countries often cooperate by keeping such prisoners in their secure facilities while airplanes refuel and people (including the prisoners) get rest and chow—as do we, when (e.g.) the Australians or British need to transport prisoners and our facilities are convenient. That part of it is true, and on that little base of truth the whole “detention centers” business was erected and told to people suspected as potential leakers.
The fact that you, and many others, were quick to assume that the detention centers were real and an abuse, and to attack the Administration on that basis, says much, much more about you than it does about George W. Bush or anyone who is working for, rather than against, him.
Hang ‘em. Embarrassing you and the Kos Kidz (not to mention certain Senators) is just a bonus.
Regards,
Ric
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, section 793 para (e)of the United States Code says:
emphasis mine.
<a href=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793″ target=”_blank”>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793</a>
Amazing, the Kosskiddies are drooling over Condi Rice’s “leaking classified info” to the Jewish/Zionist/Cheney Cabal in DC, how Iran would be justified in nuking America, and GW’s “approval” rating … Asstrios aka Duncan Hines Black is hosting yet his 5,255th “stupid open thread” and the one thread about Mary O at dementedunderground has them spinning conspiracy stories that the WaPo set Mary up!
The feverswamps of the Left have never been more like their moral brethren, Islamists, in the ability to recast reality according to their ideology.
Whoooooo. Electric shovel and pen to sign that petition ready!
Speaking as one of Senator Durbin’s constituents… I don’t think anything devious will be traced to him.. Clusmy and stupid, yes. Devious and clever, no.
He ain’t got it in ‘im to be that clever.
I don’t understand what that case has to do with national security issues. Its about compelling a journalist to reveal a confidential source.
MJ,
Stupid men are often more dangerous than devious men, though not intentionally so.
Jeff – The passage you hilighted is more an example of how the legacy press will try to pepper anything they write on this story with coy efforts to elevate their own position as the “hard working, serious investigative journalists. laboring to keep the public informed, and shine the light of truth on an administration whose actions are questionable at best”, moving temporarily away from the hatchet-press warring on Bush, and slipping into the mantle of put-upon patriots. They will continue to report every aspect of these “AnythingGates” as “factual”, escewing the honest “purported” as they did in this article when they say: the department is also investigating the disclosures about CIA-run prisons. which of course always has the desired effect of leaving the reader with the false impression that whatevers being talked about was real. They’ve done this over and over and over. You call them on it and they’ll say “yeh, whatever”, and go right back to it.
– The LMSM is all about perceptions. They’re going to pull out every spin tool they can in this story. Libby could be exonerated by the SC, and the NYT would headline it as: “Libby exonerated for leaking Plames identity”. The bastards know exactly what they’re doing and they’ve had a lot of practice. The one thing they can’t do is avoid hard time if they get pushed into a corner on sources, so the admin should just keep doing that over and over. Demand sources and when they refuse put them away on contempt. At least theres that.
Well, in that case you’re toast, because Judy Miller has pretty well closed that one off. In a national security matter (and yes, there is a distinction there, as top secret codeword special channels only noforn is going to meet the “compelling interest” test if the test can be met at all) a reporter can be compelled to reveal a source.
But I don’t know that I think that’s the interesting point. I think what’s interesting is finding out if there’s a First Amendment defense against “having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it…”
We don’t need to find out Dana Priest’s source, we’ve got that. The question is whether she has a defense against that part of the Espionage Act.
By the way, folks, if I were Mary I wouldn’t hold out too much hope on that book deal. the contract she signed says the Federal Government gets the money if she publishes anything they don’t approve.
Priest? I’d say so. Do you have one? Doesn’t everyone who read the NSA spying story fit into that statutory definition? Anyone that blogged about it?
– Mary has zero defense, and she knows it. Shes admitted everything, left with nothing but damage control, and is singing like an AeroSmith groupie according to CIA insiders. Shes in an impossible position. If she spills the beans this thing is going to spiral out in a lot of directions, but at least she gets minimal punishment. If she demures shes going away for obstruction and contempt. Porter really set the hook deep before he pulled the trigger. They probably selected the rat with the most number of tails when they chose to lead off the parade with her. Whatever else happens, I hope before its over they’re able to nail that self-important turncoat Wilson.
– Ahh. The good old “Everyones doing it” defense, huh actout. Cute, but not effective. Best try something else.
There must be other limits to that statute besides the words in it, lest we all become traitors.
Must…resist…attempt…to…engage…retarded telephone pole…go back to drinking a lovely Sandeman’s Reserve Port…rls, help me!
BBH – take charge, I’m off.
– Theres a clear set of precidence concerning secret information exposure based on the timeline of “injection into the public arena” which avoids that conflict actus. Once the initial act is perpitrated, follow on use of the information is not generally considered culpibility, as long as the government does not issue warnings to that effect.
– A clear example of this is when a publication inadverntently “guesses” in an article on performance or configuration aspects of a new secret weapons system, such as the case when Mechanics Illustrated did exactly that with a precursor story on the rumored “stealth bomber”.
– The editors were able to easily prove everything they wrote was supposition, not taken from any stolen documents or insider information.
– Judicial action generally focus’s on the initial perp, unless theres overwhelming evidence of simulteaneous contemporary actions by others.
– So you can can that wiggle room idea. McCarthy is toast, and Priest most definately is in the gunsight as well as her editors, since they all would have had to have been knowingly part of the initial actions of espionage. “they” being anyone that took part in the initial “injection into the public arena”.
Well then you’re safe Actus, since by the postitions you’ve taken, it’s apparent you haven’t read anything regarding Plamegate or the Wilson’s.
Oh that’s great. I wasn’t aware of that. Do you have some cites so I can cite it in the future?
oh. But that’s a guess. that’s not based on the source. If I come up with the theory that there are CIA prisons on my own, that’s not a problem.
It’s not in the public arena already when a reporter knows it?
But I would like a cite to this ‘injection’ line of thinking. Very interesting.
I’ve looked at it mostly from the libby case perspective. Which doesn’t really involve the wilsons.
BTW actout. Before you even start in with the “Well if it was a sting, and there were no prisons, then McCarthy didn’t really transfer secrets illegally” defense, you can forget that too. Porter was careful to make sure that little escape hatch was slamed shut, before he lowered the hammer. Hes made it clear that in the dozen or so meetings they know of between her and Priest “Other secrets” were passed on. Most of which are probably actual secrets. Aside from that you’ve got the PlameGate and WiretapPGate stuff that has yet to be disclosed. This one is a very deep well. Going to enjoy watching these rats twist in the breeze.
If you could pause on pulling your pud for that cite, i’d be much obliged.
Yes actus. If you “guessed” there were CIA secret prisons on your own, even if you were able to devine that from public information by tying a bunch of disconnected “public facts” of common knowledge together, you would not be liable, unless you were warned off by the government and you persisted with that knowledge intentionally, and acted anyway. That would be considered an intentional “informed” act of espionage.
– Similar to the case I cited, secrets are innocently guessed at all the time in publications. Generally the gov. just ignors it, and the information is left as supposition. to call attention to it would make it “real”. Sometimes if it serious enough, and theres a possibility of “future damage” the government will step in and warn off the writer, such as the administration did in the case of the NSA wiretap thing. The NYT sat on it for a year, and then decided partisan politics trumped the security of the nation. They’re also in trouble, and they know it.
– There is no way that McCarthy, Priest, and her Editors, did not “know” what they were doing.
Fuck you actus. If you need a legal secretary look one up.
Thanks. theres a “clear line of precedent” but yet when I put “inject[ion] into the public arena” into legal searches no federal cases come up with hits.
Thanks for telling me about this “clear line of precedent” though. If I need a legal secretary, i’ll make sure its not you.
Tom Clancy is a fairly well known author, but his inital notoriety didn’t come from his talent at storytelling, but rather because of his research skills.
When Red Storm Rising was published, the government investigated Clancy, because the storyline was as close as nevermind to a highly classified Dod contingency scenario—so the supposition was that someone was leaking secrets to him.
Clancy claimed innocence, and demonstrated that all information in his story came from open sources.
If that isn’t a headstart on your homework, actus, then you won’t ever get through school.
Works for me Sparky.
– Same thing with “Hunt for the Red October” stoo. That turned out to be a very close analogy to an incident thats still classified to this day, and even made it to the silver screen.
I never thought that loose lips, as applied to the Clinton administration, would have anything to do with intelligence.
Homework on what? its unquestionable that if you print a secret, but came up with it on your own, its not going to be a violation of the law. The government making something secret is not hte same as them banning it. Nuclear weapon plans may be secret, but that doesn’t stop me from designing my own nuke, even if it is the same as a govt’s plan.
BBH, hey man, see that bike helmet atop that telephone pole? See it dribble out of its transistor box? See it bang its head against the side of Jeff’s house and lick his picture window clean?
That’s because it’s a retarded telephone pole. It ain’t worth it, man; it just ain’t. Under this moron’s “argumentation”, no person anywhere can be prosecuted for leaking secret information.
Well, somebody go dig up the Rosenbergs, let’s get them on record. And get Ames in here. We can discuss classified info.
Just leave him alone. Believe me, teh World’s-Most-Fucking-Stupidest-Commenter has enough problems on his own.
Look, actAss, Mary McCarthy endangered national security. The Plame leak was nothing. What was she, a CIA secretary married to a washed up former ambassador (Clinton fired him from his old post) who was going around trashing the president in the hopes of getting a plum post in a would-be Kerry administration so he could afford to keep buying Armani suits (he does wear nice suits, I’ll give him that)? You call that a scandal?
Mary McCarthy belongs in jail. We can all sit here idly discussing “press freedoms” and this and that. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists are trying to figure out how to kill us all. And you’re worried about poor little Mary’s “rights”. Well, we’re at war, you jack ass. Last time I checked that superseded a lot of niceties of the kind you moonbats cherish.
All of that is very true actus. Now suppose you tell us what the fuck any of that has to do with a high level CIA official(s), caught red-handed, in an open act(s) of espionage against her own country?
Yes well then. This afternoons session of “Talking to the telephone pole” is now officially over.
– Back to the topic at hand.
Actually the left’s reaction to all of this is going to be very interesting, not necessarily Actus, but the Democratic party. If they throw McCarthy under the bus you can be pretty certain she is a disguntled employee or a person that imagined she would be big-cheese in a Democratic administration. If, like Actus, they defend her to the hilt…well, that might be a bad sign for them. The way the WAPO and the NYT reacted today seems to indicate they are going to defend to the hilt. Which might indciate they think they have something to fear as well. Of course, in the end, it will depend upon the circumstances of McCarthy’s take down and what she is saying, or what the tipster that led to her demise said. Regardless, considering McCarthy’s postion, I would assume that the CIA is in for a major make-over or total destruction. Interesting times, indeed.
BBH, don’t you get it?
Just because she is in the CIA with access to the same documents and intelligence about secret CIA prisons doesn’t mean she DIDN’T MAKE IT UP!
This double-secret agent overseeing the program writes fiction–which is fact–which is completely innocent!
And how are you going to argue with the sheer, brainfrost stupidity of that statement?
You guys are really gluttons for punishment. As I have repeatedly said ignore acthole. Unless of course you enjoy trying to teach physics to 2nd graders.
acthole doesn’t want to discuss anything or learn anything. All he wants to do is pick a nit out of every post, take some contratian view, and see how long he can drag out that nit.
Let him go back to his pron and his cheetos.
rls is teh suck!!!
Like I said, there’s nothing new or surprising about prosecuting a govt employee that turns over secrets. However, targeting the lobbyist or reporter that receives or further passes these on? that is new.
That there’s no surprise in prosecuting her, but there would be in prosecuting the people that printed or received the info.
What have I said that defends her?
marianna, honey bunny, be cool, be cool, honey bunny, be cool. We’re all a bunch of Fonzies in here and what’s Fonzie? That’s right, honey bunny, he’s cool.
It is just the World’s-Most-Fucking-Stupidest-Commenter. The two little wires in his head sometimes cross and that’s when PW gets a ring. Leave the retarded telephone pole alone.
Three Days of the Albatross?
Actus,
I apologize if I mis-stated your position. You believe Mary McCarthy should be prosecuted?
BBH, don’t take your eye off the ball, and look back at corvan’s post.
actus isn’t trying to defend McCarthy. He’s trying to find an out for Priest. And why would that be?
There are, so it would appear, more McCarthys out there, all with reporters on speed-dial for any case where they find something that might be damaging to the Administration. But there really aren’t all that many reporters with access and the energy to do that sort of thing. Even as blase as we’ve all gotten since Ellsburg, it has to be a bit nervous-making for a reporter to receive classified info under the table from what is, after all, a traitor. Most reporters are lazy and very conscious of the value (to them) of their butts. The few that aren’t are doing yeoman service, from the Dems’ point of view, and deserve effort on their behalf.
So if they’re going to keep doing this—and why not, it’s working—they have to keep the channels open. That means protecting the reporters who are colluding in the exposure of classified information. And that means finding any shred of justification under the law, because sure as can be Priest is going to get charged.
And the problem is that the Press may very well have been to that well one or two times too many. The Apple case out west seems to be saying that the Press is nothing special as regards the First Amendment, relative to anyone who “speaks”. That is, a Free Press is Constitutional, but a Press that sees itself as the Fourth Estate is not. A President or Administration that felt itself fairly treated by the Press probably wouldn’t go hot and heavy against reporters, contenting itself with the actual traitors. But the law itself doesn’t distinguish, and this President has no reason whatever to go easy on the Press. The law says “…knowingly…” Do you suppose McCarthy didn’t tell Priest that the info was classified? The mind boggles… and hey, lawyers! If Priest, McCarthy, and others unknown at present conspired to release classified information, does RICO apply?
And I think you and Major John (among others) have been making a mistake. Maybe it’s because I don’t spend as much time here as you do, or maybe I’m just going nuts, but the last few of actus’s posts have seemed, to me, to be edging away from “talking points peddler” and more toward “sane but partisan on the other side.” There is a difference. This one seems to be an example.
Regards,
Ric
corvan –
Lights dim, curtins receed as camera pans back.
– enter – stage left – Telephone pole disguised in heavy makeup as human being –
– Music coda – soft background “Somewhere over the rainbow” – 12 entry bars
actus to single person in the audience (his mother)
– “McCarthy prosecuted? ….. Why whatever do you mean?…”
– medavac team enters stage right wrapping actus in protective straight jacket as music swells and curtins close covering the teams exit, while mom claps enthusiastically from her front row seat….
Ric I hear you. But just off hand what jury do you imagine you could convince that Priest thought she was getting meatloaf recipes from McCarthy. Would the words “Secret CIA Prisons” have any meaning in terms of free access knowledge to even a 4th grader. You’d have a better chance of finding a working brain cell in Jane Fondas head than convincing anyone you “didn’t know”. Priest and her editors are toast. I would imagine that one of the conditions to limit her own incarceration, McCarthys being grilled on a number of questions concerning her direct conversations with Priest. But either way, even if she doesn’t admit it, its undeniable Priest had to know, along with her editors who have to “pass” on everything that gets printed. And you can bet your ass in a story this juicy every one of the heads would have been in on that decision process. The legacy media is playing evasion this morning, trying to push gas prices and the BS leak lies concerning Condi, but Porter is going to let the turds fall in the MSM’s cornflakes, spaced a few days apart until they can’t evade anymore. Going to be an interesting time watching this playout.
I don’t have enough facts, but I do believe that its not novel to prosecute govt agents that turn over secrets.
I’d like to hear more on this theory.
I am a big fan of transparency and press freedoms—Daniel Ellsberg? Hero. No matter the govt.
So it wouldn’t be unusual for McCarthy to be prosecuted. In that case Dana Priest would be a witness right, and her notes and recollections of conversations with McCarthy would be subject to subpoena right?
Also since this sort of case isn’t novel, then it wouldn’t be novel for the FBI to talk with Ms. Priest Ms. McCarthy’s actions and statements, right? You do believe the American government should be allowed to prosecute the case right?
And since you’re a fan of transparency you want to hear Mrs. McCarthy’s reasons for the leaks right? And you find MS. McCarthy’s politcal contributiuons sort of interesting right? And certainly you think her realtionship wiht Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and Sandy Berger should be explored, right? In the interst of transparency right?
Oops the second paragraph should read it wouldn’t be novel for the FBI to talk with Ms priest about Ms. McCarthy’s actions and statements, right? After all the American government should be allowed to investigate the case, right? Sorry.
I guess so. I don’t know how those things break down. I don’t think we have a journalist’s privilege. Though she could claim the 5th, and then they’d offer her immunity.
I think that’s a very interesting phenomenon with the transparency in giving. I’ve seen more attention on measuring individuals by who they give to, than on measuring politicians based on who they get from.
I don’t follow much of the wilsons or berger.
Sure, because if transparency means anything, it means the government investigating people to the full extent of its powers
And of course if Ms. Priest is given immunity she will be subject to perjury prosecution should the information she supplies turn out to be false, right? And the government would be irresponsible if they didn’t cross check everything she told them with other witnesses, and whatever documents they have that bear on this case right? And certinaly Ms. McCarthy’s motivations for giving up the information would be important right? The governement for that reason probabaly should check her connections to the Kerry capmaign, then, at least crusorily, right?
And you do rememeber that Sandy Berger, who was slotted for a postion in Kerry’s government before the socks thing helped get Ms. McCarthy hired right? So maybe some one should check on that connection, right? You also know that Joe Wilson has procured speaking engagements through Ms. McCarthy’s husband, right, and that one of Ms. McCarthy’s jobs at the CIA involved intelligence gathered in Africa, right? And that there is some indication that perhaps, she might have had a hand in sending Joe Wilson to Africa. So the governement should at least ask everyone involved about that as well, right?
That sounds right.
But it also sounds like if transparency means anything, it means any righty bugaboo involving intelligence should be chased down with the full force of government with respect to this woman. What could be more in the interests of transparency?
Sorry Actus, you didn’t answer all the questions. What about the rest of them?
I said if transperancy means anything, it means the full weight of the government being used to investigate stuff. Right?
Actus, is there a reason you don’t want to answer the rest of the questions?
So you agree that Ms. McCarthy’s connection to the Kerry campaign and Sandy Berger and Joe Wilson should be at least looked at. Good, it’s going to be interesting to see where all this goes. Could turn out to be nothing…we’ll see. It’s certainly going to be interesting.
Shouldn’t everything? If transparency in government is the goal, it seems like all government connections should be investigated.
Mostly because I don’t know anything about them. Should she be prosecuted? All i know is she got fired. I don’t know if that’s enough to get an indicment.
Feed not the acthole, for it beareth not fruit but only smog.
tw: shot
Something to think about.
Ric,
Too much port for me to engage in much an argument last night, heh heh. I do read everything up on this thread, however.
You are a good person (re: actus – hey, a pun, or something!), and your posts are interesting and well reasoned. I will try to be more flexible… but no guarantees, ok?
– Ok. the early spin approach here in the SD Union, which is pretty much in lock step with its Eastern Liberal brethrens (weeks of Abu Graibe on the front page in breathless outrage, anything positive on Bush or Iraq on page 15), is going with the “No one can believe this 20+ year veteran of the security world, whos worked tiressly to protect her country could possibly have done anything wrong, and how she single handedly tried to stop Clinton from bombing that aspirin factory, and they’re obviously “scape-goating” her, just ask lots of people she went to school with and people she worked with, so its just not believable, and its all based on the information connected with “THE SECRET CIA PRISONS IN EUROPE”. Fucking bastards. I hope Goss and the DoJ hang every one of the MF’s.
It seems to me that we should consider declaring Mary McCarthy—along possibly with Clarke, Berger and Wilson—as an enemy combatant. The point isn’t that what she did is illegal (though it is), the point is that it undermined security, as surely as the actions of Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups have. Explain to me how what these people have done isn’t outright treason. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
On hte other hand, if she is the source on government wrongdoing, then she is a hero.
They didn’t adhere to the enemy.
actus, sometimes you almost sound reasonable, then you go off again into moonbat land.
Number One: regardless of whether or not McCarthy thought she was revealing a serious abuse requiring correcting, she revealed classified information and thereby broke the law. That is why being a whistleblower or investigative journalist requires courage.
Number Two: There are many, many avenues for a whistleblower to do what is required without going to the Press as a first choice. If it could be shown that McCarthy took her information to the FBI or anywhere in the Justice Department, to a Congresscritter or Senator, or even to the Office of Management and the Budget, and got no satisfaction, I personally might be willing to give her a pass. She didn’t do any of that. She went straight to the Press, and deserves whatever she gets for that.
Number Three: You are still clinging to the “detention centers” fantasy. The detention centers she “blew the whistle” on did not and do not exist; we have the word of the European Union on that, and if there is anybody more likely to expose such a thing with glee and enthusiasm such a person would be hard to find. She dumped herself in the shitter for nothing, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
Regards,
Ric
I didn’t know this was the case.
If the EU says they didn’t find them, it must be because they don’t exist. Then she wasn’t passing on classified info on those.
Just for the sake of the argument, though, if the detention centers did exist, so what? Can actus provide a law that the existance of such detention centers might violate?
I’d like to see him/her actually contribute to the discussion, rather than just asking others to do so.
– Just knew you were going to try that ploy actout, even per-mentioned it yesterday. Aside from the fact that Goss says that there were “other” secrets passed by her, you don’t have to be passing actual secrets to be found guilty of espionage, just believe you were and the act is all it takes. Piss and moan if you like, call it “entrapement”, its been tried before and always fails as a defense. The approach called a “Canary trap”is a long and honored approach to outing turncoats in security operations all over the world. You and Mary will need to look for another angle.
– Actually she not only got caught in a “Canary”, but failed her polygraph ,and confessed when she was confronted by the examiner, so all this back and forth is useless babble. But I can understand that the left would hold out any hope possible that somehow they and their agent moles could somehow slither out from under this. Good luck Sparky.
You just have to have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the US. At least according to that statute, and if she did base it on the sources mentioned in that statute.
Of course, if she just made it up, that’s not a problem.
– Or in this case injurious to an Administrations policies you have a intense agreementy with to such a degree, you don’t care if it hurts the country. Its for the “greater cause”. J. Boothe and his gaggle of extremists thought they were super patriots saving the Republic. In retrospect it would appear they were somewhat off track.
– The point is no matter how strongly you may feel about things, theres simply a line you don’t cross, and anyone with common sense knows that breaking the laws designed to protect the nation is one of those lines. It takes a lot of hubris to talk yourself into that sort of stupid action. The left seems to ofetn mistake emotion for rectitude. Its easy to incite passions, not so easy to control them when people act impulsively.
– Make that “intense disagreement with….”